5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lived in Łódź, Poland.
6.  On 14 June 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.
7.  On 15 June 1998 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 14 September 1998. The court notes that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence and that there was strong evidence against him. There was also the risk that he might attempt to intimidate witnesses, abscond or go into hiding. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him.
8.  On 24 June 1998 the Łódź District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) dismissed the applicant’s request for release. The decision was upheld by the Łódź Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) on 7 July 1998. The prosecutor relied on the fact that the applicant, shortly before his arrest, had been wanted by the police in another case and that he had no permanent place of residence.
9.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended pending trial several times by the Łódź Regional Court. Each time, the court repeated the reasons previously given for the applicant’s detention and, further, relied on the need to take expert evidence. The court requested that an expert opinion be prepared by the end of November 1998.
10.  On 18 December 1998 the Łódź District Prosecutor indicted the applicant for attempted murder.
11.  On 2 June 1999 the trial began, the bill of indictment was read and the court began hearing statements from the applicant. In the course of giving explanations the applicant felt unwell and the hearing was adjourned.
12.  The applicant’s state of health did not prevent him from participating in the proceedings. The next hearing was held on 2 September 1999. Subsequent hearings were held at regular intervals ranging from one to four months. Several hearings were adjourned for different reasons, such as the absence of one of the judges, the need to examine the victim’s place of residence and to request expert opinions on biological and chemical examination of tracks.
13.  On 5 June 2000 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed on 15 September 2000.
14.  On 22 January 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. The applicant remained in custody.
15.  On 30 March 2001 the prosecutor refused an application for release by the applicant. He found that there were no reasons for releasing him.
16.  The applicant’s detention was extended by the Regional Court on 23 March, 22 June, 17 August and 16 November 2001. Appeals by the applicant against those decisions, and requests for release, were dismissed.
17.  On 6 July 2001 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Łódź Regional Court and accused the applicant of attempted murder.
18.  The Regional Court held five hearings at regular intervals.
19.  On 30 January 2002 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.
20.  On 22 October 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.
21.  On 12 December 2002 the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf because he had found no grounds for doing so.
22.  The applicant died on 6 April 2006. On 30 January 2007 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died nearly 7 months before the application was communicated to the Government. Furthermore, the Government requested the Court to adjourn the examination of the application until the applicant’s successors declared whether they intended to pursue the application. The Court requested Ewa Kocik, the applicant’s life partner, mentioned as his successor before the Court in his letter of 31 March 2005, to submit information as to whether she wished to continue the proceedings in her partner’s stead. On 21 February 2007 Ewa Kocik informed the Court that she wished to continue the proceedings before the Court.